Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Turner v. Crammer

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 11, 2018

RICHARD TURNER, Plaintiff,
v.
CRAMMER, COLE, COOK, PHILIPS, ROSS, HAWKINS, and SNYDER Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Richard Turner, an inmate in Alton Law Enforcement Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests nominal and punitive damages, as well as “this facility shut down as a permanent housing facility.” This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Upon careful review of Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff originally filed suit with several co-plaintiffs on October 10, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The Court entered a Boriboune Order warning plaintiffs of the risks of multi-party litigation, and as a result, several plaintiffs dropped out of the suit. Id. The Court then screened the Complaint on January 10, 2018 and found that some claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and a fourth claim was legally frivolous. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The Court directed the plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint no later than February 8, 2018 on Counts 1-3. Id. Instead of filing a joint amended complaint, plaintiffs filed individual amended complaints. Id. On this basis, and because plaintiffs' claims did not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 20, the Court severed that action and placed each plaintiff in his own suit. (Doc. 1). This matter is now before the Court to screen the Complaint[1] filed by Richard Turner on February 8, 2018, and severed into this action on March 1, 2018. (Doc. 2).

         Plaintiff alleges that his rights are violated when shower and cell cleaning time is included in his hour of daily recreation. (Doc. 2, p. 7). Plaintiff also lacks proper cleaning supplies. Id. The shower is not properly maintained. Id. The inmates lack access to a law library per Crammer. Id.

         Plaintiff's cell doesn't have any heat because of Cook and Crammer. (Doc. 2, pp. 7, 18). Plaintiff's grievance alleges that he has to stay covered up because of the cold. (Doc. 2, pp. 18-21).

         Plaintiff's rights were violated by Philips on November 22, 2017. (Doc. 2, p. 8). Plaintiff's grievance on this issue shows that he wasn't allowed to use nail clippers. (Doc. 2, p. 15).

         Plaintiff's rights were violated by Cook on November 2, 2017, and also on January 9, 2018, and January 10, 2018 because she cut into inmate's recreation time. (Doc. 2, pp. 8, 13). A response to the grievance regarding the November 2 incident describes it as a denial of recreation suggests that the inmates were denied ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.